An Antiquated Dispute of Property

An Antiquated Dispute of Property written by Surya Sunilkumar student of Ramaiah institute of legal studies

V. Kalyanaswamy (D) by Lrs. and Anrs. Vs L. Bakthavatsalam (2020)

Abstract

On 17th July 2020, the Supreme Court passed a judgment for a family dispute that rose in 1955. The SC dismissed all the appeals against the judgment given by the Madras High court in 2007. It also stated that the coparcener has no right to execute a will with respect to Joint Family Property prior to the Hindu Succession Act. The court held that the Will dated 10-05-1955 executed by Late Mr. Rangaswami Naidu was lawful and valid.

Facts of the Case

In this case, Late R. Venkituswamy had two sons, Late Lakshmaiah Naidu and Late Ragaswami Naidu. Rangaswami was married to R. Krishnammal but they didn’t have any children, however, Lakshmaiah had four sons. Both the brothers constituted a Joint Hindu family business. But due to an illness, Rangaswami executed a will in which he bequeathed his share in the Joint Hindu Family property and self- acquired properties in favor of this wife R.Krishnammal. The dispute arose when Rangaswamy’s widow filed a case claiming the title of the aforesaid share of properties and recovery of mesne profits from the defendants (sons of Laksmaiah) who were in possession of the property. The Magistrate under section 145 of the Criminal Code of Procedure gave possession to the defendants. Later a series of cases were filed, which resulted in a compromise decree in 1958. However, the dispute resurfaced when R.Alagiriswamy Naidu and V. Kalyanaswamy filed a suit against the compromise decree challenging the validity of the will on the grounds that the will was executed under coercion, undue influence, and fraud by the Respondent. He also challenged that any will executed by a coparcener of his undivided interest in the Joint Hindu Family Property is illegal and invalid.

Judgment

The Trial Court faced a predicament regarding the authenticity of the will made by Rangaswamy Naidu. Although the trial court held that the will was invalid and unlawful the First appellate Court found it to be authentic. Later when an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court it disagreed with the decision made by the High Court regarding the validity of the will but agreed with the verdict of the High court to be the endmost conclusion based on other aspects of the case. Hence the SC pronounced the judgment dismissing all the appeals.

Rationale of the court

The Court decided the following observation about the validity of the will made by the testator herein the issue of the case:
• The will was an unprivileged will under Sec.63 of the Indian Succession Act 1925. Sec 63 deals with proving a document by a way of secondary evidence.
• In order to test the authenticity of the will one of the attested witnesses named in the will have to prove that the will has been duly executed by the testator in presence of at least two witnesses and that the other witnesses had also attested to the will (Sec.68 of Evidence Act 1872)
• Se 69 of Evidence Act has to be applied if the witnesses mentioned in the will have died, have become insane, etc. Sec71 provides that if a witness doesn’t recollect the execution of the will then some other evidenced has to be used.
• In this particular case the Appellants failed to prove that there was coercion, undue influence, or fraud.

Case Analysis

• The court decided on basis of these provisions that the testator had clearly mentioned in his will all the required details of the properties that would be bequeathed to his wife and the manner in which she has to use and dispose off the properties. Further, as the Hindu Succession Act,1956 was not enacted, Hindus were allowed to leave his joint family property along with his self acquired property to another person. Therefore the apex court dismissed all the appeals made by the Appellants.
• The decision made by the court was justifiable and fair. Appellants didn’t have any proper evidence for the claims they made regarding the validity of the testamentary document i.e the will made by Late Rangaswamy. It was held that the effect of the death of Rangaswami Naidu being before the Hindu Succession Act came into force to be that it would deprive persons of rights available in respect of a Hindu who dies intestate after the Act came into force.

Conclusion

This case has proven to be a landmark case regarding a coparcener’s right to execute the will and regarding a women’s right over her husband’s testamentary. The case has come to a halt after 65 long years by dismissing all the appeals of the claims made by the appellants against the decision of the Madras High Court.